The Bombay High Court recently emphasised the importance of equal sharing of household responsibilities between husbands and wives in modern society. This observation came as the court dismissed an appeal filed by a man seeking the dissolution of his 13-year-old marriage, as he failed to establish his claim of “cruelty” against his estranged wife.
The 35-year-old man had challenged a 2018 order from the Family Court that dismissed his divorce plea on the grounds of cruelty. Both the husband and wife were employed, and the court noted that expecting the wife to shoulder all household responsibilities reflected a regressive mindset.
“In modern society, the burden of household responsibilities has to be borne by both husband and wife equally. The primitive mindset expecting the woman of the house to solely shoulder the household responsibilities needs to undergo a positive change,” the judges remarked.
It has been argued from the husband’s side that on many occasions, the appellant used to leave the house without taking his breakfast.
A bench comprising Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh and Justice Nitin W. Sambre stated that on perusal of the admissions, the admitted position is that both the husband and the wife were employed and as such, expecting the wife to do all the household work reflects a regressive mindset.
Furthermore, the court emphasised that in a marital relationship, a wife should not be isolated from her parents, and she cannot be expected to sever ties with her family. The judges’ comments came in response to allegations that the wife was constantly on the phone with her mother and not participating in household chores.
In view of the above, the bench stated: “The marital relationship cannot result in isolating the respondent-wife from her parents and she cannot be expected to sever all ties with her parents after her marriage. Being in contact with one’s parents cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as inflicting mental agony on the other party.”
The bench thereby opined that putting restrictions on the wife to curtail her contact with her parents, has, in fact, subjected the wife to mental cruelty apart from physical cruelty which has been established.
However, on the point of cruelty, the bench also said that cruelty generally refers to a series of acts occurring frequently that results in causing such mental or physical agony to the wronged party that the Court would be left with no option, but to dissolve the marriage, which is not so in the instant case.
The couple had married in 2010, and the husband alleged that his wife did not perform household work and was always in contact with her mother. However, the wife claimed that she was forced to handle all household responsibilities after returning from work and faced abuse when contacting her family. She also alleged instances of physical abuse by her estranged husband.
Comments
0 comment